PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Raj Kishore Prasad JJ.
Ishar Singh
Versus
Babu Gajadhar Prosad Singh
Letter Patent Appeal No. 22 of 1954 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 09, 1956
ESTOPPEL - ACQUIESCENCE - MORTGAGE DECREE - BINDING EFFECT - REPRESENTATION OF MINOR BY FATHER - JOINT HINDU FAMILY - LEGAL NECESSITY AND BENEFIT - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 115 - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 115.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, or in the alternative for recovery of possession, in respect of 40 acres of land comprised in plot No. 839, under holding No. 339, situated in village Alawalpur. The plaintiff claimed title to the land through a mortgage deed executed in his favor by the defendants' father and brother in 1954. The mortgage suit was decreed, and a final decree was prepared in 1938. The mortgaged properties were sold in execution of the decree in 1938, and the delivery of possession was given in 1939. By mistake, the area of plot No. 839 was mentioned as .39 acres only, instead of .79 acres, in the execution petition, sale proclamation, sale certificate, and the writ of delivery of possession. The plaintiff got himself recorded in the landlords sherista in respect of .39 acres only. When the mistake was discovered, the plaintiff applied to the court to correct the area of plot No. 839 from .39 acres to .79 acres, which was allowed in 1945. The defendants-appellants contended that the plaintiff was estopped by the principle of acquiescence from claiming a greater area, and that the mortgage decree was not binding on Dasrath Singh, defendant-appellant 2, who was a minor at the time of the mortgage suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff was not estopped by the principle of acquiescence from claiming a greater area, as there was no representation made to the defendants-appellants which led them to act in a particular way. The court further held that the mortgage decree was binding on Dasrath Singh, as he was effectively represented by his father in the mortgage action. The court found that the father represented the interest of his son Dasrath Singh, and, as no prejudice had been caused to him, he was bound by the decree in the mortgage action.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was estopped by the principle of acquiescence from claiming a greater area? 2. Whether the mortgage decree was binding on Dasrath Singh, defendant-appellant 2?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of estoppel is enacted in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 115 does not apply to a case where the statement relied upon is made to a person who knows the real facts and is not misled by the untrue statement. There can be no estoppel where the truth of the matter is known to both the parties. 2. In the present case, the defendants-appellants knew very well that the boundary related to plot No. 839 in its entirety, and the total area of plot No. 1 namely, 1.81 acres also showed that plot 839 in its entirety was sold. In these circumstances, there was no question of estoppel or acquiescence. 3. The mortgage decree was binding on Dasrath Singh, as he was effectively represented by his father in the mortgage action. The father, even if he was not karta, could represent his sons effectively in the suit, or execution proceedings, as he could do if he was the karta himself, subject to the right of the son to assert and prove that the debt contracted by his father was not such as would be binding on him under the Hindu Law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with costs.
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
1. The two points pressed, in this Letters Patent Appeal, against the judgment of Mr. Justice S. K. Das, as he then was, are : (1) whether the plaintiff-respondent is estopped by the principle of acquiescence from claiming a greater area; and (2) whether the impugned mortgage decree is binding on Dasrath Singh, defendant-appellant 2.
2. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession, or in the alternative for recovery of possession, in respect of 40 acres of land comprised in plot No. 839, under holding No. 339, situated in village Alawalpur.
3. The plaintiffs case was that, on 30th of October 1954, Milan Singh, Ramprasad Singh, father of Dasrath Singh, defendant-appellant 2, and Ishar Singh, defendant-appellant 1, executed a mortgage deed, in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of 2.63 acres of land, which included 1.81 acres out of holding No. 339. Holding No. 339 consisted of six plots, and included plot No. 839, the disputed land also. The entire area of plot No. 839 was .79 acres.
4. On the foot of the mortgage, the plaintiff brought a mortgage suit against the executants. Admittedly, to this suit, Dasrath Singh, defendant-appellant 2, who was then a minor, was not impleaded, although his father, Ram Prasad Singh, who was one of the executants, was a party to the suit. The mortgage suit was decreed, and, a final decree was prepared, on 14th April, 1938.
5. The decree was put into execution, and the mortgaged properties were sold on 16th December, 1938, and, the delivery, of possession was given on 25th of April, 1939. By mistake, in the execution petition, sale proclamation, sale certificate and the writ of delivery of possession, the area of plot No. 839 was mentioned as .39 acres only, instead of 79 acres although in all these four documents, the boundaries mentioned were the boundaries of the entire plot No. 839, and not a portion of it only The plaintiff, thereafter, on the strength of the delivery of possession, got himself recorded in the landlords sherista in respect of .39 acres only.
6. When the above mistake was discovered, the plaintiff applied before the Court, which passed the decree and sold the mortgaged land, to correct the area of plot No. 839 from .39 acres to .79 acres on the ground that the area was wrongly written by the scribe. This petition of the plaintiff was allowed on 1st February, 1945 but without any notice, to the judgment debtors, at the plaintiffs risk. The plaintiff, therefore, pleaded that there was a mis-description of the area of plot No. 839, in the above mentioned four documents, because the boundaries, mentioned therein, showed that the entire plot No. 839 was intended to be sold, and, the entire plot was actually sold, and, delivery of possession of the entire plot was given to the plaintiff.
7. There was an adverse order against the plaintiff in a proceeding under Sec.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, therefore, the plaintiff brought the present suit claiming the reliefs stated before.
8. Ishar Singh, defendant-appellant 1 appeared in the suit, and filed a written statement to the effect that only the southern portion of plot No. 839 was mortgaged, and that was the area which was sold in execution of the mortgage decree, and, the plaintiff came in possession over that portion, and as such the plaintiff had no right to .40 acres as claimed in the suit. He, further, contended that the amendment allowed, being without notice to the judgment debtors, was not binding on them.
He further raised a plea that Dasrath Singh, appellant 2, not having been made a party to the mortgage action, the decree passed therein was not binding on him, and, therefore, the plaintiff had acquired no title to the disputed land vis-a-vis Dasrath Singh, appellant 2. Dasrath Singh, appellant 2, also later, appeared in the suit, and adopted the written statement of Ishar Singh, defendant-appellant 1.
9. The learned Muns
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.